[asia-apec 1078] NO-TO-APEC IN CHRISTCHURCH

[Robert Reid]

AOTEAROA / NEW ZEALAND
APEC MONITORING GROUP
P O Box 1905 CHRISTCHURCH	TEL:  (03) 366 2803 Fax:  (03) 366 8035


MEDIA BRIEFING

(3 pages)									 19/04/1999
Alternatives to the APEC Agenda: Development, Foreign Investment &
Sovereignty

Programme Of Activities
The Aotearoa/New Zealand APEC Monitoring Group, GATT Watchdog, Campaign
Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA), and Christchurch Corso have
organised a programme of activities in Christchurch in opposition to the
APEC Meetings which take place from 26 April - 7 May.  All 4 organisations
have been actively monitoring and campaigning on free trade and investment
issues locally, nationally and internationally for many years.  

The April/May activities in Christchurch are part of a year-long education
and action programme co-ordinated by the APEC Monitoring Group to expose
and oppose  APEC's narrow economic agenda and its consequences, to make the
connections between APEC and domestic free market policies, and build
public debate on alternatives to this model of development.  Other events
are planned for Wellington (June), Auckland (June), Rotorua (August),
culminating in a two-day conference in Auckland at the time of the
September Leaders Summit.

Alternatives to the APEC Agenda starts on Friday 23 April at 7.30 pm with a
public meeting addressed by Annette Sykes, Ngati Pikiao lawyer, Treaty
activist, Dr David Small, Corso National Officer and University of
Canterbury lecturer, and Murray Horton of CAFCA and GATT Watchdog.

The forum on 24 April will focus on the impact of, and alternatives to,
APEC's free trade and investment agenda on economic and social development,
and on sovereignty.  The issue of foreign investment will be especially
examined as the New Zealand government is deliberately playing down APEC's
role in pressuring governments to adopt free investment policies.  

Confirmed Speakers 

An Overview of APEC
Aziz Choudry, GATT Watchdog, APEC Monitoring Group

Development and the Market Model
Dr David Small, Corso National Officer, University of Canterbury lecturer
Radha D'souza, Indian human rights lawyer, unionist, Asia Pacific Workers
Solidarity Links

Foreign Investment
Dr Bill Rosenberg (CAFCA researcher, author of "Foreign Investment in New
Zealand, the Current Position" in Dr Peter Enderwick's "Foreign Investment:
The New Zealand Experience", 1998)
Murray Horton (CAFCA organiser)

Sovereignty under threat?Annette Sykes, Ngati Pikiao lawyer, Treaty
activist


APEC 1999 - It's Not Worth It! Ten Good Reasons Why 

1) APEC is not just about free trade - it promotes a package of reforms
including investment provisions which strongly parallel those in the
controversial Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) which stalled
within the OECD last October after massive international opposition. APEC
is only one part of moves to promote a global free market on the world,
along with the World Trade Organisation which is due to start another round
of global trade talks later this year, and agencies like the World Bank,
IMF, and ADB. APEC promotes deregulation, privatisation of state assets,
utilities and services, market-driven service sectors including social
services like education, privately-funded and owned infrastructure,
low-cost, deunionised, flexible labour markets.  These policies have the
potential to affect every aspect of people's lives.  While the interests of
business are paramount in APEC discussions, it treats people and the
environment as mere commodities, tools for private profit.  This model has
already led to increased inequality as countries are forced to compete in a
race to the bottom to lower wages, working conditions, environmental
safeguards and other "barriers" to free trade and investment.2) APEC is an
anti-democratic process.  It operates through a cycle of closed meetings
and secretive discussions.  Only a privileged few have access to these. 
Most of the real negotiations of APEC take place at the Senior Officials
Meetings (SOMs) such as the one in Christchurch later this month.  The
Auckland Leaders Summit is primarily a made for media showpiece - it is the
lower-profile meetings where APEC's real work takes place.   

3) APEC lacks any clear political legitimacy. Describing itself as a
community of "economies" rather than countries, APEC insulates discussions
about trade and economic policies from their social, political, cultural,
and environmental effects. Issues like poverty, employment, environmental
degradation, human rights, and indigenous peoples' rights to
self-determination are off the APEC agenda unless they can be redefined in
"trade-related" terms.

When Jenny Shipley goes to APEC meetings she goes as the leader of the New
Zealand economy, not the Prime Minister. Much of APEC's work programme is
set by private sector free marketeers, academics, and government officials
"acting in their private capacity" - and accountable to no-one. The
government is not required to disclose, objectively evaluate or debate in
Parliament its policy and commitments in relation to APEC. There has been
no genuine consultation with Maori about the substance of APEC
negotiations.  The only moves to involve Maori and non-governmental
organisations in APEC are entirely cosmetic and an attempt to limit debate
about the issues arising from APEC and co-opt potential or actual critics. 


4) APEC's official slogan is "APEC means business". As US Undersecretary
for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, Joan Spero told US
Congress in 1995: "APEC is not for governments; it is for business. Through
APEC, we aim to get governments out of the way, opening the way for
business to do business." With strong representation on the formal
institutional voice of business within APEC, the APEC Business Advisory
Council (chaired by Philip Burdon in 1999), big business exerts a strong
influence on APEC's programme. Many of APEC's key working groups are
dominated by representatives of major transnational corporations.  

By contrast, the Small and Medium Enterprises programme is almost an
afterthought within the APEC agenda - and the New Zealand government's
attempts to portray a commitment to advancing the interest of small
businesses through APEC are a highly cynical political stunt.  The policies
adopted by New Zealand governments in the name of free trade have led to a
hollowing out of the local economy with thousands of small businesses
forced to go under, unable to compete with the power and reach of bigger,
global corporations that are being given greater license to operate
wherever and however they wish.

5) In Canterbury, and throughout New Zealand, tariff cuts have cost
thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector especially in the sensitive
auto, textile, clothing and footwear industries.  Even though APEC is a
non-binding, voluntary process, the government is using its commitments to
APEC to justify further unilateral trade liberalisation. Free trade
policies have been pursued vigorously by New Zealand, but most of our major
trading partners continue to protect their industries and agricultural
producers with tariffs and other forms of support. A May 1998 Canterbury
Development Corporation report on the effects of further tariff cuts to the
textile, clothing and footwear sectors estimated a further 1330 job losses
and some $32 million in lost wages in Christchurch alone.  
6) The government is spending $50 million dollars on APEC 1999.  For what?
APEC, and the Leaders Summit in particular are a taxpayer-funded
pre-election photo opportunity for the National Party, and a celebration of
an economic agenda which has failed the peoples of New Zealand and the
region. It sees inequality as inevitable and desirable and contends that
what is good for big business is good for all the peoples of the region.

7) APEC is suffering from a serious crisis of credibility. In spite of
government attempts to talk up its achievements, few concrete commitments
have actually been made.  There are serious internal tensions within the
forum, and it is very fragile. With the ongoing economic crisis, many APEC
members' ambivalence towards further economic liberalisation has increased.
 The USA, despite its demands that other nations open their economies up
continues to pursue policies which are driven by their own economic
interests, not an ideological adherence to the free market theory which
underpins New Zealand's economic policies. Japan, many of the ASEAN
countries, the USA, and Australia are all resisting the push to speed up
economic liberalisation. Even pro-market voices like the Asia 2000
Foundation have been critical of the overwhelming emphasis placed on trade
and investment liberalisation measures within APEC.  

8) The New Zealand government is desperately going to great lengths to
massage APEC's image and to portray the free trade and investment, free
market path as the only alternative model of economic development.  It
wants to use APEC to sell New Zealand-style reforms to other APEC members
who have adopted a far more pragmatic approach to economic policy- making
than successive New Zealand governments which have put the country at the
extreme edge of trade and investment liberalisation - and as such, highly
vulnerable.  It has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on
public relations and marketing strategies to develop a "brand image" for
APEC to sell to the public and avoid serious debate.9) Claims of economic
benefits to New Zealand from the global free market vision advocated by
APEC, and from hosting the APEC meetings are highly speculative and
unsubstantiated. But the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource
Economics projects a 0.4% gain to New Zealand's GNP from APEC after 20
years above the supposed returns from the GATT Uruguay Round. Although the
combined Christchurch APEC meetings will cost taxpayers over $1 million, Dr
Adolf Stroombergen's Infometrics study on the net economic benefits of the
meetings estimates that only 8 jobs will be created from hosting the APEC
meetings in Canterbury. And we have already seen the high human costs of
this agenda through the adherence to this economic model by successive New
Zealand governments. 

10) The hosting of APEC meetings, especially the Leaders Summits, have
become synonymous with human rights abuses caused by the security
operations for APEC. In previous years these have targeted local critics of
APEC , and led to the disruption of the lives of ordinary citizens of the
host cities.  The New Zealand government is seeking ways to avoid any open
debate about the deficiencies and flaws of the economic model which APEC
promotes, and has shown in the past that it will use anti-democratic
tactics to suppress dissent and present a false image of stability,
security and consent to international dignitaries attending APEC meetings
here. Over $18 million is being spent on security alone.  Some of that will
involve spying on legitimate political activities, harassment of anti-APEC
organisers and groups, and preparing for a massive security crackdown for
the Leaders Summit.  This has already begun.

Programme of activities for Christchurch:
Friday April 23 Public meeting, Alternatives to the APEC Agenda, 7.30 pm,
Knox Hall, Cnr Bealey Ave and Victoria St, with Annette Sykes, Dr David
Small, and Murray Horton
Saturday April 24 Alternatives to the APEC Agenda: Development, Foreign
Investment and Sovereignty (see details above)
Tuesday April 27 The Roger Award, 8pm, Trade Union Centre, 199 Armagh St. 
Mayor of Dunedin Sukhi Turner will announce the 1998 "winner" of the Roger
Award for the worst transnational corporation operating in New Zealand
(organised by Corso, GATT Watchdog and CAFCA)
Friday April 30 Rally and March against APEC (organised by the Campaign
Against People Last Economics (CAPLE), leaves Cathedral Square at 6 pm
Wednesday May 5 Public meeting on APEC 1999 and the New Right agenda in New
Zealand with Dr Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law, Auckland University, and
author of The New Zealand Experiment. 7.30 pm Knox Hall.  (Organised by
GATT Watchdog and the Canterbury WEA)

For further comment contact Leigh Cookson (APEC Monitoring Group) ph (03)
366 2803; (03) 381 2951 or Aziz Choudry (GATT Watchdog) on 021 217 3039